Red Mosquito

Val wrote:At the end of the day, it’s evening

i hope to use this someday. would you like credit when I do?

unLEASHed wrote:

Jorge wrote:

unLEASHed wrote:My point was on the relevance side not popularity of the moment…and worldwide relevance not US only… Imagine Dragons are relevant today, that means nothing to me in terms of long game…

How many rock bands, pop acts, were the biggest thing for any number of years and are a footnote today?

Lots, but the Foo Fighters are far from the flash in the pan you're painting them as. They've sustained a consistent level of popularity for decades, and carved a place for themselves in music history that's at least comparable to PJ's. I think your dislike of the band is causing you to underestimate their reach and influence. (And yes, on a worldwide level, not just the US. They're HUGE in South America. The last time Pearl Jam won a Brit Award was in 1994, the Foo Fighters have won 5 since)

Are we really talking about awards to determine a bands influence and future relevence? Milli Vanillli please come back…Nickelback had radio hit after radio hit, do you consider them a band for the history books?

there needs to be some standard for cultural relevance and especially popularity. Awards, spotify listens, etc. seem like decent enough choices

the current generation of rising musicians are folks who would have grown up listening to pearl jam/foo fighters/etc. Eventually we will see who gets cited more as an influence, who gets covered, and so on


Until then I think its inarguable the Foo Fighters are more popular than Pearl Jam. Pearl Jam almost certainly has a more devoted fan base, though. How many people claim the foo fighters as a favorite band?

stip wrote:

unLEASHed wrote:

Jorge wrote:

unLEASHed wrote:My point was on the relevance side not popularity of the moment…and worldwide relevance not US only… Imagine Dragons are relevant today, that means nothing to me in terms of long game…

How many rock bands, pop acts, were the biggest thing for any number of years and are a footnote today?

Lots, but the Foo Fighters are far from the flash in the pan you're painting them as. They've sustained a consistent level of popularity for decades, and carved a place for themselves in music history that's at least comparable to PJ's. I think your dislike of the band is causing you to underestimate their reach and influence. (And yes, on a worldwide level, not just the US. They're HUGE in South America. The last time Pearl Jam won a Brit Award was in 1994, the Foo Fighters have won 5 since)

Are we really talking about awards to determine a bands influence and future relevence? Milli Vanillli please come back…Nickelback had radio hit after radio hit, do you consider them a band for the history books?

there needs to be some standard for cultural relevance and especially popularity. Awards, spotify listens, etc. seem like decent enough choices

the current generation of rising musicians are folks who would have grown up listening to pearl jam/foo fighters/etc. Eventually we will see who gets cited more as an influence, who gets covered, and so on


Until then I think its inarguable the Foo Fighters are more popular than Pearl Jam. Pearl Jam almost certainly has a more devoted fan base, though. How many people claim the foo fighters as a favorite band?

I have a similar view of RHCP. I have yet to meet someone who names RHCP as their favorite band.

unLEASHed wrote:

Jorge wrote:

unLEASHed wrote:My point was on the relevance side not popularity of the moment…and worldwide relevance not US only… Imagine Dragons are relevant today, that means nothing to me in terms of long game…

How many rock bands, pop acts, were the biggest thing for any number of years and are a footnote today?

Lots, but the Foo Fighters are far from the flash in the pan you're painting them as. They've sustained a consistent level of popularity for decades, and carved a place for themselves in music history that's at least comparable to PJ's. I think your dislike of the band is causing you to underestimate their reach and influence. (And yes, on a worldwide level, not just the US. They're HUGE in South America. The last time Pearl Jam won a Brit Award was in 1994, the Foo Fighters have won 5 since)

Are we really talking about awards to determine a bands influence and future relevence? Milli Vanillli please come back…Nickelback had radio hit after radio hit, do you consider them a band for the history books?

It seems there's no criteria for relevance that is valid to you except whether you personally like them or not

unLEASHed wrote:

Jorge wrote:

unLEASHed wrote:My point was on the relevance side not popularity of the moment…and worldwide relevance not US only… Imagine Dragons are relevant today, that means nothing to me in terms of long game…

How many rock bands, pop acts, were the biggest thing for any number of years and are a footnote today?

Lots, but the Foo Fighters are far from the flash in the pan you're painting them as. They've sustained a consistent level of popularity for decades, and carved a place for themselves in music history that's at least comparable to PJ's. I think your dislike of the band is causing you to underestimate their reach and influence. (And yes, on a worldwide level, not just the US. They're HUGE in South America. The last time Pearl Jam won a Brit Award was in 1994, the Foo Fighters have won 5 since)

Are we really talking about awards to determine a bands influence and future relevence? Milli Vanillli please come back…Nickelback had radio hit after radio hit, do you consider them a band for the history books?

Nickelback are far more of a household name now than Pearl Jam; don't let the fact that they suck (and were initially heavily influenced by Pearl Jam) distract you from how ubiquitous they are in popular culture

I know way more people in real life that like the Foos than i do that like Pearl Jam past Ten and the song Better man

Ms Harmless wrote:

unLEASHed wrote:

Jorge wrote:

unLEASHed wrote:My point was on the relevance side not popularity of the moment…and worldwide relevance not US only… Imagine Dragons are relevant today, that means nothing to me in terms of long game…

How many rock bands, pop acts, were the biggest thing for any number of years and are a footnote today?

Lots, but the Foo Fighters are far from the flash in the pan you're painting them as. They've sustained a consistent level of popularity for decades, and carved a place for themselves in music history that's at least comparable to PJ's. I think your dislike of the band is causing you to underestimate their reach and influence. (And yes, on a worldwide level, not just the US. They're HUGE in South America. The last time Pearl Jam won a Brit Award was in 1994, the Foo Fighters have won 5 since)

Are we really talking about awards to determine a bands influence and future relevence? Milli Vanillli please come back…Nickelback had radio hit after radio hit, do you consider them a band for the history books?

Nickelback are far more of a household name now than Pearl Jam; don't let the fact that they suck (and were initially heavily influenced by Pearl Jam) distract you from how ubiquitous they are in popular culture

They’re a household name in that they’re mentioned when someone wants to crack a joke.

Thats not fame, that’s infamy.

the current generation of rising musicians are folks who would have grown up listening to pearl jam/foo fighters/etc. Eventually we will see who gets cited more as an influence, who gets covered, and so on.

I don't think this is true at all. Those days are past. The bands that would have grown up listening to Pearl Jam are the likes of The Strokes and the Killers Today's bands your talking Panic at The Disco era or like Paramore at the earliest. Really if you are 22 what were you listening to 10 years ago? Mumford and Sons or something maybe the band Fun I'm not sure I'm over double that age 20 years is probably the cut off for current crop of new college age bands.

Jorge wrote:

unLEASHed wrote:

Jorge wrote:

unLEASHed wrote:My point was on the relevance side not popularity of the moment…and worldwide relevance not US only… Imagine Dragons are relevant today, that means nothing to me in terms of long game…

How many rock bands, pop acts, were the biggest thing for any number of years and are a footnote today?

Lots, but the Foo Fighters are far from the flash in the pan you're painting them as. They've sustained a consistent level of popularity for decades, and carved a place for themselves in music history that's at least comparable to PJ's. I think your dislike of the band is causing you to underestimate their reach and influence. (And yes, on a worldwide level, not just the US. They're HUGE in South America. The last time Pearl Jam won a Brit Award was in 1994, the Foo Fighters have won 5 since)

Are we really talking about awards to determine a bands influence and future relevence? Milli Vanillli please come back…Nickelback had radio hit after radio hit, do you consider them a band for the history books?

It seems there's no criteria for relevance that is valid to you except whether you personally like them or not

Relevance in music history, not popularity at any given moment…different things. Lets put it this way, what will the Foo Fighters remembered for? sorry I cant see it. Im not looking at this from the taste point of view alone, thats your opinion on my take on this subject. we can dance around this subject all we want in many arts, cinema is a good example, how many movies never won an oscar or made a dent in worlwide box office and are much more relevant, and influential than the ones who did? this is my take on this, time will tell who is right or wrong.

Jorge mentioned the Brit Awards? He knew the foos won them?

Wow diehard fan!

tragabigzanda wrote:You guys were all “don’t talk about IDLES in the Pearl Jam thread!” but now you’re arguing about Foo Fighters.

The comparison is a bit more apt, you have to admit

unLEASHed wrote: Relevance in music history, not popularity at any given moment…different things. Lets put it this way, what will the Foo Fighters remembered for? sorry I cant see it. Im not looking at this from the taste point of view alone, thats your opinion on my take on this subject. we can dance around this subject all we want in many arts, cinema is a good example, how many movies never won an oscar or made a dent in worlwide box office and are much more relevant, and influential than the ones who did? this is my take on this, time will tell who is right or wrong.

Genuine question, no combative intent here at all: What do you think PJ will be remembered for that Foo Fighters won't be?

unLEASHed wrote:

Jorge wrote:

unLEASHed wrote:

Jorge wrote:

unLEASHed wrote:My point was on the relevance side not popularity of the moment…and worldwide relevance not US only… Imagine Dragons are relevant today, that means nothing to me in terms of long game…

How many rock bands, pop acts, were the biggest thing for any number of years and are a footnote today?

Lots, but the Foo Fighters are far from the flash in the pan you're painting them as. They've sustained a consistent level of popularity for decades, and carved a place for themselves in music history that's at least comparable to PJ's. I think your dislike of the band is causing you to underestimate their reach and influence. (And yes, on a worldwide level, not just the US. They're HUGE in South America. The last time Pearl Jam won a Brit Award was in 1994, the Foo Fighters have won 5 since)

Are we really talking about awards to determine a bands influence and future relevence? Milli Vanillli please come back…Nickelback had radio hit after radio hit, do you consider them a band for the history books?

It seems there's no criteria for relevance that is valid to you except whether you personally like them or not

Relevance in music history, not popularity at any given moment…different things. Lets put it this way, what will the Foo Fighters remembered for? sorry I cant see it. Im not looking at this from the taste point of view alone, thats your opinion on my take on this subject. we can dance around this subject all we want in many arts, cinema is a good example, how many movies never won an oscar or made a dent in worlwide box office and are much more relevant, and influential than the ones who did? this is my take on this, time will tell who is right or wrong.

What are the Foos remembered for????

DDWJMUVW wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

unLEASHed wrote:

Jorge wrote:

unLEASHed wrote:My point was on the relevance side not popularity of the moment…and worldwide relevance not US only… Imagine Dragons are relevant today, that means nothing to me in terms of long game…

How many rock bands, pop acts, were the biggest thing for any number of years and are a footnote today?

Lots, but the Foo Fighters are far from the flash in the pan you're painting them as. They've sustained a consistent level of popularity for decades, and carved a place for themselves in music history that's at least comparable to PJ's. I think your dislike of the band is causing you to underestimate their reach and influence. (And yes, on a worldwide level, not just the US. They're HUGE in South America. The last time Pearl Jam won a Brit Award was in 1994, the Foo Fighters have won 5 since)

Are we really talking about awards to determine a bands influence and future relevence? Milli Vanillli please come back…Nickelback had radio hit after radio hit, do you consider them a band for the history books?

Nickelback are far more of a household name now than Pearl Jam; don't let the fact that they suck (and were initially heavily influenced by Pearl Jam) distract you from how ubiquitous they are in popular culture

They’re a household name in that they’re mentioned when someone wants to crack a joke.

Thats not fame, that’s infamy.

I think that's splitting hairs; if I'm reading you right, you're defining "infamy" as "fame that I don't personally see as justified"

Tj wrote:the current generation of rising musicians are folks who would have grown up listening to pearl jam/foo fighters/etc. Eventually we will see who gets cited more as an influence, who gets covered, and so on.

I don't think this is true at all. Those days are past. The bands that would have grown up listening to Pearl Jam are the likes of The Strokes and the Killers Today's bands your talking Panic at The Disco era or like Paramore at the earliest. Really if you are 22 what were you listening to 10 years ago? Mumford and Sons or something maybe the band Fun I'm not sure I'm over double that age 20 years is probably the cut off for current crop of new college age bands.

rising is not thr right word to use (though it was mine). Im thinking artists who would have been around for a while and eatablished as the major mainstream voices, not the hot new thing.

but maybe that will never be pearl jam. they made some unprecedented choices ij music industry history, and this is the consequence.

Kevin Davis wrote:

unLEASHed wrote: Relevance in music history, not popularity at any given moment…different things. Lets put it this way, what will the Foo Fighters remembered for? sorry I cant see it. Im not looking at this from the taste point of view alone, thats your opinion on my take on this subject. we can dance around this subject all we want in many arts, cinema is a good example, how many movies never won an oscar or made a dent in worlwide box office and are much more relevant, and influential than the ones who did? this is my take on this, time will tell who is right or wrong.

Genuine question, no combative intent here at all: What do you think PJ will be remembered for that Foo Fighters won't be?

the lead singer's voice. dave grohl is a great frontman, but eddie vedder's voice is as good as anyone. i know he's not the same singer he was, but when he was at the top of his game he was incredible.

stone gossard's riffs. especially 'alive', but 'black', 'go', 'do the evolution' are almost as memorable. it's like he's combining blues sounds and funk rhythms.

the foo fighters are fine, i think the albums grohl did by himself are great, and i'm sure they will be remembered fondly in rock music history. i don't think they can hold pearl jam's jock. they are more like weezer or green day than they are pearl jam.

stip wrote:

Val wrote:At the end of the day, it’s evening

i hope to use this someday. would you like credit when I do?

be my guest

stip wrote:

Tj wrote:the current generation of rising musicians are folks who would have grown up listening to pearl jam/foo fighters/etc. Eventually we will see who gets cited more as an influence, who gets covered, and so on.

I don't think this is true at all. Those days are past. The bands that would have grown up listening to Pearl Jam are the likes of The Strokes and the Killers Today's bands your talking Panic at The Disco era or like Paramore at the earliest. Really if you are 22 what were you listening to 10 years ago? Mumford and Sons or something maybe the band Fun I'm not sure I'm over double that age 20 years is probably the cut off for current crop of new college age bands.

rising is not thr right word to use (though it was mine). Im thinking artists who would have been around for a while and eatablished as the major mainstream voices, not the hot new thing.

but maybe that will never be pearl jam. they made some unprecedented choices ij music industry history, and this is the consequence.

Ok then yes there are a good amount that do list Pearl Jam that are in their 40's Jason Isbell Eric Church Dierks Bentley of course Brandi Carlile the Avett Brothers etc. I think Pearl Jam's ethos has actually helped them in that regard.